Media Matters was created by David Brock. Do you know who David Brock is?

[jillan]

I keep seeing links over and over and over again about how faux used a link to media matters to promote an anti-Hillary story....

David Brock is one of the top Hillary supporters. He runs a superpac for her.
Here is a great piece from Michelle Goldberg on his organization.... http://www.thenation.com/article/how-david-brock-built-empire-put-hillary-white-house/


So when you post a link to Media Matters to prove something about Hillary, It's really no different than linking to Hillary's campaign.

I used to read media matters regularly because they do a good job at pointing out falsehoods in the corporate media... which they still do, but now they added an entire section of Look at the Media Being Mean to Hillary!

just FYI.

(edited to change my contrast & compare.)

[beam me up scottie]

1. Yes, he's the misogynist who helped destroy Anita Hill.

But now he's a "good guy" because he shills for Hillary both at Media Matters and through his Super PAC.

Book Author Says He Lied in His Attacks on Anita Hill in Bid to Aid Justice Thomas
By ALEX KUCZYNSKI and WILLIAM GLABERSON
Published: June 27, 2001

The author of a best-selling book that attacked the credibility of Anita F. Hill has disavowed its premise, and now says that he lied in print to protect the reputation of Justice Clarence Thomas.

David Brock, the author of the book, ''The Real Anita Hill'' (Free Press, 1993), has also suggested, in a magazine article to be published this week, that Justice Thomas used an intermediary to provide Mr. Brock with damaging information about a woman who had come forward to provide support for Ms. Hill's accusations of harassment by Justice Thomas. Ms. Hill's accusations became the focus of Senate hearings into Justice Thomas's nomination to the Supreme Court in 1991.

Mr. Brock reported that he then used the information to force the woman to retract her statements about Justice Thomas. The article, in the August issue of Talk magazine, is excerpted from Mr. Brock's new book, ''Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex Conservative'' (Crown Publishers), which is scheduled to be published in September.

Describing an article he wrote for The American Spectator, a conservative magazine, in 1992, which became the basis for his book on Ms. Hill, he said he did everything he could to ''ruin Hill's credibility,'' using ''virtually every derogatory and often contradictory allegation I had collected on Hill into the vituperative mix.''

''I demonized Democratic senators, their staffs, and Hill's feminist supporters without ever interviewing any of them,'' he continued.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/27/us/book-author-says-he-lied-his-attacks-anita-hill-bid-aid-justice-thomas.html

I watched those hearings, not forgotten, not forgiven.

[workinclasszero]

17. The socialist from Vermont sure is doing a scorched earth campaign inside a party he's bashed for

years.

Thats right and he will regret it mightily some day.

Soon I hope.

[beam me up scottie]

18. You think what he did to Hill was "cool"?

Well that says it all, doesn't it?

[beam me up scottie]

28. Your words: "Really? Cool" And you made several assumptions there, perhaps you can back them up?

I assumed you could explain your problem with Biden since you watched the hearings back then.

You seem familiar with my posting history on DU so you also know about my criticism of Biden.

I get you want everyone to hate him because Bernie.

How do you know what I want?

[frylock]

39. But he repented.

I wonder if Ted Bundy ever repented?

[SidDithers]

2. Did you seriously just equate David Brock and mediamatters with Breitbart?...

Sid

[merrily]

3. Linking to mediamatters is no different from linking to Hillary's own super PAC, run by Brock, which

is different from many other PACs in that there need not even be a pretense that the PAC is independent of Hillary or her campaign.

[RiverLover]

5. Same with BlueNationReview.com /nt

[beam me up scottie]

13. Better analogy since many are purposely ignoring the op's actual point.

That a Hillary supporter linking to Media Matters is like a conservative linking to Breitbart, meaning the two sources are biased, not that the two are both right wing.

It's too early for so much faux outrage.

[merrily]

16. Meh.

[corkhead]

19. An alerter did but the jury didn't:

On Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:20 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Media Matters was created by David Brock. Do you know who David Brock is?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511138094

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"So when you post a link to Media Matters to prove something about Hillary, it's really no difference than a right winger coming here and posting a link to breitbart."

That is beyond over the top and inappropriate. Media Matters is not Breitbart. That's 100% bullshit comparison and completely inappropriate.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:24 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Don't hide it. Debate it.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Please. Enough with the personal grudge alerts!
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is one of the worst alerts I have ever adjudicated. It deserves a 0-7. If you don't like what the post says, respond to it rather than cry to mommie. This is a FORUM for dog's sake!
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Annoying and incorrect hyperbole from the poster, but I don't see a violation. Alerter is better off challenging the poster on the facts in the forum. Did I mention how much I hate GDP?

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[beam me up scottie]

22. Good jury!

People are sick of the alert stalking.

[OilemFirchen]

31. Media Matters states its liberal bias in unequivocal terms.

The appropriate analogy would be to NewsBusters or AIM. The distinction, of course, is that the latter are notorious for prevarication and presenting opinion as fact while the former maintains a stellar record of accuracy.

It's also cited, regularly, by the Left regardless of any candidate preference or lack thereof. Any claim otherwise belies a personality-driven agenda devoid of a substantive basis.

[RiverLover]

4. Thank you jillian.

Propaganda, manipulation.

To help conservatism take over Democrats under the cover of "We're liberals! Really!"

David Brock's specialty.

[NCTraveler]

6. Love that they are fighting back against Fox News smears.

They are doing so well. It's no secret that Fox News was running with this bogus smear early. The definition of ratfucking.

[cali]

7. Actually it is different. Linking to Media Matters is like linking

to the campaign.

[jillan]

8. True. I think I will go do an edit!

[workinclasszero]

9. You compare Media Matters to fu**** breitbart!?

Some of you bernie backers are beyond the pale.

You are burning all bridges to people and organizations that bernie would absolutely need to be successful if elected!


There is no reasoning with a person that tells outrageous lies like breitbart and Media Matters are the same.

Ignored.

[JTFrog]

12. OP is already walking that shit back.

Fucking disgusting comparison.

So when you post a link to Media Matters to prove something about Hillary, it's really no difference than a right winger coming here and posting a link to breitbart.

[jillan]

15. Yes! It was a harsh comparison but it does not change the fact that Brock runs a superpac

for Hillary or that Media Matters has become a Hillary apologist website.

[JTFrog]

20. Pathetic. n/t

[jillan]

23. Of course! Failure to understand the truth always is.

[JTFrog]

24. I'm not the one pushing the FOX narrative. n/t

[Jefferson23]

10. I know who he is, a self admitted liar and shill. n/t

[earthside]

14. He is Chuck Colson, redux.

Maybe even slimier.

The association between the Clinton effort and Brock is yet another reason to be highly skeptical of Hillary's ethical foundations.

Charles Colson, Nixon’s ‘dirty tricks’ man, dies at 80
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/chuck-colson-nixons-dirty-tricks-man-dies-at-80/2012/04/21/gIQAaoOHYT_story.html

[Hiraeth]

21. --

On Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:20 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Media Matters was created by David Brock. Do you know who David Brock is?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511138094

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"So when you post a link to Media Matters to prove something about Hillary, it's really no difference than a right winger coming here and posting a link to breitbart."

That is beyond over the top and inappropriate. Media Matters is not Breitbart. That's 100% bullshit comparison and completely inappropriate.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:24 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Don't hide it. Debate it.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Please. Enough with the personal grudge alerts!
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is one of the worst alerts I have ever adjudicated. It deserves a 0-7. If you don't like what the post says, respond to it rather than cry to mommie. This is a FORUM for dog's sake!
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Annoying and incorrect hyperbole from the poster, but I don't see a violation. Alerter is better off challenging the poster on the facts in the forum. Did I mention how much I hate GDP?

[FlatBaroque]

37. Reply to Alerter: Breitbart and Brock are

are two identical nuts in a dog's nutsack. One of them is dead tho

[OilemFirchen]

27. Media Matters was and continues to be a go-to source for right-wing media debunking.

Well-researched, well-documented exposes with a practically unassailable record, staffed by well-credentialed professionals. It has survived relentless, orchestrated attacks from knuckledragging miscreants since its inception - including the thinly-veiled assertion that it was found by, and continues to be financed by George Soros - and will continue to do so.

David Brock is David Brock.

[JaneyVee]

30. Media Matters is incredible and important.

No other place exposes and archives rightwing bullshit the way they do.

[JaneyVee]

33. Who said "he"? I was referring to Media Matters and their employees.

[RiverLover]

34. David Brock is Media Matters.

I'm sure good people work there. At least they have a job.

[JaneyVee]

35. Corporations are people?

[frylock]

40. Really?

Never heard of Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting? They were around long before shitweasel, David Brock, started smearing Anita Hill.

What’s FAIR?
FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. As an anti-censorship organization, we expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information.

Uniquely, FAIR works with both activists and journalists. We maintain a regular dialogue with reporters at news outlets across the country, providing constructive critiques when called for and applauding exceptional, hard-hitting journalism. We also encourage the public to contact media with their concerns, to become media activists rather than passive consumers of news.

***

FAIR publishes Extra!, the newsletter of media criticism, and produces the weekly radio program CounterSpin, the show that brings you the news behind the headlines. In addition, FAIR’s thriving email list distributes articles and Action Alerts to our international network of over 50,000 activists. Sign up today on FAIR’s homepage.

For an in-depth explanation of FAIR’s critique of the mainstream media, you should start with our overview, What’s Wrong with the News? You might also check out the article What’s FAIR?, by FAIR founder Jeff Cohen. See what journalists, activists and scholars have to say about FAIR.

[FlatBaroque]

36. Funny thing

when these cockroaches worked in the dark, they got away with all their ratfucking, but now, in 2016, it is near impossible to deceive the public on the same scale as they had in the past. These are the people that manifest the echo chamber. Their tactics are becoming more and more irrelevant. In fact, I would submit that as the public acquires more in-depth knowledge about these people, a candidates association with them can be held against them.

[frylock]

38. Disregard any links from Blue Nation Review as well.

Sale Of Blue Nation Review Gives Hillary Clinton Camp Its Very Own Media Outlet